Q&A: What Reforms Would Improve the New Program?

Day 2 · 3:56:14 · Dean Allison · Daniel Freiheit · Jasmeet Grewal · Shawn Buckley

• 📎 Simplify chain-of-custody so patients can submit records by affidavit, easing burdens on doctors and hospitals.
• 👩‍⚕️ Establish and externally certify a medical review board whose members’ credentials can be verified without public naming.
• 🔍 Every other Canadian tribunal identifies decision-makers so bias or competence can be challenged; secrecy here speaks volumes.

Concrete recommendations offered for chain-of-custody and accountable medical review.

← Q&A: What Is It Like Helping Clients Navigate VISP? | Lunch Break: Reading Names of the Vaccine-Injured into the Record →

Transcript

Dean Allison · 3:56:14

Have you thought about that at all in terms of that, or would you be willing to provide some information for us after the fact?

Daniel Freiheit · 3:56:20

Sure.

Daniel Freiheit · 3:56:20

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

Dean Allison · 3:56:21

Do you have anything off the top of your head right now, or you've been thinking about anything?

Jasmeet Grewal · 3:56:25

Well, like I said, just, just those, uh, those two issues, which is the, um, the chain of custody of medical records to make that, uh, simpler, um, and more efficient for everybody. Win for the doctors, win for the hospitals, win for everybody. And the other recommendation I would say is just to get that review board and have it certified. All the prior decisions that were made, I haven't seen— like, they attached the decision as a schedule, and it's—.

Daniel Freiheit · 3:56:51

It's—.

Jasmeet Grewal · 3:56:52

We're told by a case manager that that was reviewed by a board, but we need better evidence. And my recommendation would be to have a regulated professional confirm that there's been a team. And I know we don't want to name medical professionals because it is there can be a concern there for their careers. I think they should be identified to someone who can just verify that they have the qualifications to, to make those determinations.

Dean Allison · 3:57:15

That's great.

Shawn Buckley · 3:57:17

Well, I just find it interesting that in every other forum we know who the decision maker is. We can see if there's bias and appeal based on bias. We can see if they're qualified and appeal based on qualified. But for some reason, because this is a forbidden topic, that there's a risk of disclosing medical practitioners in case they happen to be ruling in favour of vaccine injured, that that could hurt their careers. I mean, that, that's in itself speaks volumes.

Jasmeet Grewal · 3:57:47

I acknowledge it is unusual. Every, every tribunal in this country, from what I know, is the, the tribunal members are all identified. I guess because the response, the COVID response was so dramatic and there, there was very volatile I appreciate that it's now a sensitive, sensitive area.

Dean Allison · 3:58:08

Okay, we're almost out of time. Any final thoughts for us on this?

Daniel Freiheit · 3:58:11

I know that's it.

Jasmeet Grewal · 3:58:12

I just thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity. I really appreciate all our discussions and thank you all for—.

Dean Allison · 3:58:18

Well, thanks. Thank you very much for the input. It's very helpful.

Daniel Freiheit · 3:58:20

Thank you.

Shawn Buckley · 3:58:21

And I know you traveled on short notice to do this. We really appreciate you coming and sharing this.

Dean Allison · 3:58:25

Thank you.